As of today..........

[KowboyKoop]

I think a lot of people are forgetting about how bad San Diego could potentially be next year. They are going to trade Peavy (I bet fairly early in the year, if not before the year starts) and were awful last year......and the owner is going through his issues or whatever and has been/is slicing budget big time......there is just nothing, absoulutely nothing going right for them it seems. They could put 110 losses, potentially.

Of course, now that I say this, they'll probably pull off a small miracle and win 77 games.

[justanewguy]

They could put 110 losses, potentially.

110, hell, maybe even 115, wouldn't surprise me. That team only has half a handful of MLB-caliber talent, if even that. Trade Peavy and you're looking at a bunch of junk and Adrian Gonzalez.

Of course, now that I say this, they'll probably pull off a small miracle and win 77 games.

And thereby win the NL West?

[HoustonGM]

I think this season will see mostly a great deal of parity, which is why I've chosen the Angels and Phillies (the 2 most sure picks I can see as division winners) to go along with the Yankees.

I think you're greatly overestimating the Angels. They won 100 games in 2008, but outplayed their Pythagorean record by something like 12 games. Compound that with the loss of Mark Teixeira and the slight downgrade from K-Rod to Brian Fuentes...and you're looking more at a team that wins around 85 games, which very well might win the AL West...but Oakland's looking up and they're likely not done making moves.

I think the Angels are the pick right now for the AL West, but I'd put them somewhere around the 10th best record in the majors, with barely any shot at making the top 5.

I also wouldn't call the Phillies sure picks, at all. The Mets greatly improved their one weakness this offseason, that being their bullpen. The bullpen was the Phillies greatest strength in 2008, and given that they got career years out of guys like Clay Condrey and Chad Durbin, that's likely going to regress significantly in 2009. It was a close race in 2008, and I think the Mets are the clear favorites for 2009.

Also, the odds of 3 teams in the AL East (especially considering that a: the Blue Jays are a pretty strong team, and b: they play in the AL) being the winningest teams in baseball are staggering, to say the least. The Rays were a phenomenal team last season and "only" won 97 games, and didn't put up this 100+wins-equivalent performance outside of the division that keeps being mentioned. THREE teams doing it (with the Red Sox seeming to be a bit of a question mark in terms of greatness)... it's a veritable impossibility.

Tampa vs. non-Boston/New York in 2008: 80-47 (.630, 102-60)
Boston vs. non-Tampa/New York in 2008: 78-51 (.605, 98-64)
New York vs. non-Tampa/Boston in 2008: 69-57 (.548, 89-73)

No, I don't think it's a veritable impossibility that those three teams each perform at a .600+ winning percentage level against the other teams, considering they were relatively close to doing it in 2008, and all three teams have improved over the offseason (often at the expense of other teams).

The Jays were an 86-win team in 2008, but they're not going to be close to that in 2009. They lost Burnett to the Yankees. They'll be without Dustin McGowan and Shaun Marcum, who both pitched relatively well in injury-shortened seasons in 2008. Jesse Litsch has been solid so far in his career but his tiny strikeout rate doesn't bode well for a long career. Their pitching was their biggest strength in 2008. This year, they're entering the season with a rotation of Halladay, Litsch, David Purcey, Casey Janssen, and Scott Richmond. Maybe Scott Downs or Rickey Romero. Basically, a large amount of unproven and/or poor pitchers. The Jays and Orioles, I think, are both going to lose in the vicinity of 90+ games, with a large portion of those losses going to the other 3 teams in their division.

[metsguy234]

Best- Red Sox, Yankees, Mets

Worst- Nationals, Pirates, Padres

[justanewguy]

I think you're greatly overestimating the Angels. They won 100 games in 2008, but outplayed their Pythagorean record by something like 12 games. Compound that with the loss of Mark Teixeira

Weren't they on the same pace pre-Tex?

and the slight downgrade from K-Rod to Brian Fuentes...

Too slight to affect their win total by more than 2 or 3 games, if even that.

and you're looking more at a team that wins around 85 games, which very well might win the AL West...but Oakland's looking up and they're likely not done making moves.

I think the Angels are the pick right now for the AL West, but I'd put them somewhere around the 10th best record in the majors, with barely any shot at making the top 5.

I understand that the Angels "shouldn't have won" as many games as they did, but it's really, really difficult for me to bet against the Angels winning a ton of games.

Really, the "as of today..." parameter for picking the winningest/losingest teams just causes me to default to the 3 teams I (personally) see as having the best chances of winning their divisions. For me, right now, that's the Yankees, the Angels and...

I also wouldn't call the Phillies sure picks, at all. The Mets greatly improved their one weakness this offseason, that being their bullpen. The bullpen was the Phillies greatest strength in 2008, and given that they got career years out of guys like Clay Condrey and Chad Durbin, that's likely going to regress significantly in 2009. It was a close race in 2008, and I think the Mets are the clear favorites for 2009.

...the Phillies. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't pick my Cubs/Cardinals thing to refute! That seems far more radical than picking the Phillies over the Mets.

Yes, the Mets have improved. While the Phillies haven't really improved. But I simply think the Phillies have a better team, without any serious consideration for how things did play out/should have played out in '08. While the Philadelphia bullpen is set to regress, I think their rotation is set to improve, along with the rest of their young core. Meanwhile, Delgado and Beltran get one year older, the Met LF/RF is still weak, and the starting rotation still has some question marks.

I like the Phillies for the NL East.

Tampa vs. non-Boston/New York in 2008: 80-47 (.630, 102-60)
Boston vs. non-Tampa/New York in 2008: 78-51 (.605, 98-64)
New York vs. non-Tampa/Boston in 2008: 69-57 (.548, 89-73)

I stand corrected about Tampa, but...

No, I don't think it's a veritable impossibility that those three teams each perform at a .600+ winning percentage level against the other teams, considering they were relatively close to doing it in 2008, and all three teams have improved over the offseason (often at the expense of other teams).

... I still have to go with FSR here. Those teams playing each other for close to 1/4 of the season (and that 9-9 vs. each other thing [or anything even close] would be a massive statistical anomaly in its own right) really does throw an insanely HUGE monkey wrench into the whole mess. That, plus the odds of ALL THREE teams living up to expectations, which, in and of itself is asking a lot, statistically. There are too many variables to jell with the hard stats that all 3 teams are projected to be winners. It would take an enormous amount of parity in the other 5 divisions, and a WHOOOOOLE lot of luck for this to happen. The odds really are enormously stacked against this happening, to the point where picking any 3 random teams from the top 15 MLB teams would probably be a more likely outcome...

[HoustonGM]

Ah crap. I wrote up a long response and lost it.

I really don't feel like rewriting it. Blah.

[justanewguy]

Ah crap. I wrote up a long response and lost it.

I really don't feel like rewriting it. Blah.

That means I win!!!

Just kidding.

But the "as of today" thing does make this a little premature, and the question is an interesting and unconventional one.

There will be plenty more discussion to be had when the '09 predictions thread inevitably surfaces in March. For all I know I'll be picking the Mets and A's by then.